Replies

In passing--I note that the latest Adoremus Bulletin vigorously defends their interpretation of the Vat's liturgical discipline statement. That was one ugly debacle. For the record, Adoremus should look at its own house first. Stravinskas reportedly weighed in on Vere's side of the debate -- as he feels the document was weak -- but Hitchcock has reportedly locked him out of the Adoremus Bulletin despite the fact Stravinskas was one of Adoremus' founders. They continue to maintain that the document is authoritative, despite the objections of your friend. It is authoritative. No questions about it. The question is how much authority? Like Vere, I agree that if RS were as authoritative as Benofy and Hitchcock make it out to be, then traditionalists better be prepared to swallow communion in the hand and several other adaptations from the Novus Ordo. On the other hand, if Vere and Huels are right (insofar as the two agree), then papal legislation trumps an instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments and traditionalists can be left to worship in peace. Utterly ignored in all of this is the 'spirit of willing submission' to Rome and the clear statement in Canon Law that Rome is the final arbiter of all liturgical matters. That's exactly the point Vere is trying to get across -- Rome does not give equal weight to every document, but rather each type of document carries a different weight. Thus an instruction from a Curial Congregation trumps other acts of executive power, but not legislation promulgated by the Holy Father.